Balancing PAM

[Tanarii]

Theoretical exercise on how to rebalance Polearm Master. This is one of the three outright broken PHB Feats, the other two being Greatweapon Master and Sharpshooter. There's been much spilled ... uh bytes ... on how to balance the latter two, but not so many on the former.

Three ideas off the top of my head:

1) For the TWF-like attack:
- Have the primary attack lowered by one die.
- weapon loses the Heavy property for purposes of the Greatweapon Fighter Feat until your next turn.

(Obviously both of these would require declaring that you're going to Bonus Action attack when taking the Attack action. That's a non-trivial change for some tables.)

(stoutstein suggested (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23342152&postcount=2) having the haft attack trigger from a missed attack. Some discussion on this idea in various posts. Some discussion on tightening the wording with Beezlebubba in posts #5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23342182&postcount=5), #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23342182&postcount=7), #45 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23342182&postcount=45), and at the end (Edit2) of #71 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23342182&postcount=71).)

2) for the opportunity attack when entering the threatened area:
- change it to a generic reaction instead of an opportunity attack. This prevents several nasty stacking effects.

(microstyles pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23351930&postcount=83) that this can be considered a buff in general. It introduces issues with the reaction now being possible in cases where an OA wouldn't have been possible due to the defenders features preventing them.)

3) for quarterstaff and spear:
- specify a quarterstaff must be used in two hands to benefit from the TWF-like attack
- remove qs from the attack when entering reach
- add spear to TWF-like attack benefit, when used in two hands

Throw down your ideas!

Edit log:
2018-09-07: microstyles point on OAs vs generic Reactions.
2018-09-07: stoutstien on haft attacks.
2018-09-07: discussions with Beelzebubba on haft attacks.

[stoutstien]

Only allow butt strike if the player misses with main attack.

[Tanarii]

Only allow butt strike if the player misses with main attack.
Oh, I like that, because simplicity.

Still retaining the bonus action to make the butt strike, right?

[Beelzebubba]

Theoretical exercise on how to rebalance Polearm Master....

I feel you. One player rolled awesome stats and took Battlemaster/PAM/Sentinel/Mobile and is operating 4-5 levels above everyone else. I hate to nerf stuff, but when I have to design encounters around him alone it gets to be too much.


2) for the opportunity attack when entering the threatened area:
- change it to a generic reaction instead of an opportunity attack. This prevents several nasty stacking effects.

Other than PAM/Sentinel, and PAM/Sentinel/War Caster/Booming Blade, what else is there?


3) for quarterstaff and spear:
- remove qs from the attack when entering reach

What build abuses the QS so much this way? To me, the closing attack is OK if it's 'get another bit of damage in, then monster attacks', rather than 'make every 1-on-1 combat against any 5' reach monster an utter cakewalk because they never close'.

[Beelzebubba]

Only allow butt strike if the player misses with main attack.

This is great.

Question: what about this?

allow butt strike if the player misses with one of the attacks during an Extra Attack action

That way non-fighters get a bit of a melee buff, and fighters just get a bit more reliable with damage. Would that be opening another bad exploit?

[stoutstien]

I should have worded it better, pretty much I add spear to the list of weapons and they must be whielded in two hands
The bonus action attack is only available if a player misses with an attack.
Still allow reaction attack when enter reach as written.
Yes it simple and my players love it but you have to be careful with lowering martial damage.

[Tanarii]

What build abuses the QS so much this way? To me, the closing attack is OK if it's 'get another bit of damage in, then monster attacks', rather than 'make every 1-on-1 combat against any 5' reach monster an utter cakewalk because they never close'.Probably none. Maybe a QS PAM monk?

That one was more "it bugs me" than "this is broken" but I threw it in anyway.



allow butt strike if the player misses with one of the attacks during an Extra Attack actionI assumed that was what was meant. Would the best wording be: "If you miss with one or more attacks that are part of an Attack action ..."?

[microstyles]

If you're interested in more minor nerfs, I was considering the following for flavor purposes:

Polearm Master:
The bonus 1d4 bludgeoning attack can only be made at a target within 5 feet of you.

Spinning you're weapon around and still trying to get the full range out of it seems like a very impractical way to attack to me. In close quarters you'd have to hold the head closer to you to attack anyway, so you'd get more shaft to attack with.

Sentinel:
The speed = 0 bonus for an opportunity attack only works on creatures no more than one size larger than you.

Stealing a rule from shoving/grappling. Most huge+ creatures have reach anyway but this change makes it easier for them to chase after other characters without you locking them down.

[Lunali]

Sentinel:
The speed = 0 bonus for an opportunity attack only works on creatures no more than one size larger than you.

Stealing a rule from shoving/grappling. Most huge+ creatures have reach anyway but this change makes it easier for them to chase after other characters without you locking them down.

Booo, that removes my favorite idea for sentinel, finding a way to get a flying dragon to provoke an AoO and using a whip to make them sit/fall to the ground.

[ad_hoc]

The lack of magical polearms is the big trade off that people overlook.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be honest, you could just remove the bonus-action-attack part, which never felt terribly polearm like anyway. Replace it with... Spear Master's "bonus action to extend your reach until the end of your turn?"

[Tanarii]

The lack of magical polearms is the big trade off that people overlook.
Depends how the DM determines what type of weapons magical weapons are. There's no official method for magical weapons that aren't specific to begin with. Otoh lots of them are specific at higher rarities.

In AL, it's definitely an issue.


To be honest, you could just remove the bonus-action-attack part, which never felt terribly polearm like anyway. Replace it with... Spear Master's "bonus action to extend your reach until the end of your turn?"
I dunno about that. I got the impression that haft-fighting was an internal part of using the western Halberd and the eastern Glaives? Or at least, if pop-culture views it that this was the case (enough so I got the impression), then it probably belongs in D&D.

On a micromanagement / non-abstract scale, using it for both reach and haft attacking in the same round seems a little weird. But so does stabbing someone with a 7-8ft Spear (5e's "Pike") then turning it around and stabbing someone directly behind you. In a 5ft wide corridor. Or firing a Heavy Crossbow once every six seconds.

[ad_hoc]

Depends how the DM determines what type of weapons magical weapons are. There's no official method for magical weapons that aren't specific to begin with. Otoh lots of them are specific at higher rarities.

In AL, it's definitely an issue.


I can see it being an issue in AL. But then, are houserules allowed in AL?

[Tetrasodium]

in my opinion, PAM itself is not a problem. The problem is PAM+sentinel+GWM at 4/6/8 on variant human is the problem & largely because the combo is so over the top that it runs into the 1/1 vrs 1/3 & 1/4 BaB progression of the past where anything able to even make that character sweat a little is going to mop the floor with the others.

[Lunali]

in my opinion, PAM itself is not a problem. The problem is PAM+sentinel+GWM at 4/6/8 on variant human is the problem & largely because the combo is so over the top that it runs into the 1/1 vrs 1/3 & 1/4 BaB progression of the past where anything able to even make that character sweat a little is going to mop the floor with the others.

In which case the simplest solution is to make the attack granted by PAM not an opportunity attack, much like the one granted by sentinel.

[Tanarii]

I can see it being an issue in AL. But then, are houserules allowed in AL?No no, I meant (as far as my experience went) magical pole arms weren't very common in AL. So your point is well made, it's a balancing factor to consider.

[Asmotherion]

I tend to think it's fine as it is. It's very tempting as a combat oriented feat, but not enough to make you want it above all other feats. It is indeed universally good, but that's the design purpose behind 5e feats.

Weapon Oriented Characters Specialising in a Polearm Will prefear it to other feats. Others will go for their weapon equivalents, wile others, not so Weapon Oriented Can freely opt to miss it without costing them in their optimisation. In that perspective it's not "broken".

I would call it broken if, for example, a Sword and Board character decided to swich to a Polearm just to benefit from the Feat.

Wile not exactly a Balancing Factor, I would include more Variety in the avalable Weapon/FS Oriented Feats in the future. More feats that are equally as tempting to take, so that "taking it" would be a Choice, and not "The Obvious Choice, Because it's Relativelly powerfull". Right now, the other Powerful Choices are limited, which is what creates the problem.

Make a Shield Oriented Feat that Gives you your Prof Bonus to AC As a Reaction for the Rest of the Turn, and a Two Weapon Fighting that Actually somehow Scales with Extra Attack. That kind of Things.

[stoutstien]

It's broken in the sense that it's better than twf in ever way with less investment.

[Pex]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Pole Arm Master is not "outright broken", nor are Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter. You don't have to like them, but your not liking them does not make them "outright broken".


It's broken in the sense that it's better than twf in ever way with less investment.

Or perhaps two weapon fighting isn't strong enough to be a viable alternative.

[Malifice]

It's broken in the sense that it's better than twf in ever way with less investment.

TWF gives +1 to AC.

That said, you dont have to take the TWF F/S to get +damage with the d4 attack, freeing you up to take the F/S that grants +1 AC.

[Pex]

If a player has been using a pole arm since level 1 or 4 with the feat, and he's now level 12 yet still does not have a magical pole arm, the problem is the DM is a donkey cavity. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway. If Adventure League refuses to allow Pole Arm Master feat players access to magical pole arms, take your complaints to the powers that be who run Adventure League.

[Tanarii]

No magic item exists without the DM's permission. Or an appropriate roll on the treasure table.

There is, however, no table for rolling type of weapon for things like Weapon +1, if it should come up.


There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway.
That'd be a house-ruled custom magic item.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. But more importantly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not doing that either.

[stoutstien]

along the same lines i nerf/buff great weapon master and sharp shooter by removing the + damage portion of the feats. I just allow players to "call shots" they can choose to remove there prof bonus to attack rolls and add it to damage rolls once per round.

[Willie the Duck]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Pole Arm Master is not "outright broken", nor are Great Weapon Master or Sharp Shooter. You don't have to like them, but your not liking them does not make them "outright broken".

We already have a few people here who overuse (/mis-use) legal objection and logical fallacy terminology. Please don't also fall into that unfortunate tendency. Whether something is broken or not is already inherently a statement of opinion, not a fact. If you do not think that stoutstien made clear enough that they were stating an opinion, please argue that instead. Thank you.


Or perhaps two weapon fighting isn't strong enough to be a viable alternative.

This. Overall, the real frustration I have with PAM, Sentinel, Sharpshooter, or GWM isn't that they do anything I don't think a combat focus feat (that costs a full ASI, a real cost-benefit expense at any level) shouldn't do, so much as the fact that there aren't many other options (particularly for fighter types that want to focus on other weapons or handedness arrangements) that are equally as good ideas, power-wise. If there was a 2wf option, and a sword and board option (especially after Shield Master was nerfed, at least for those who follow the tweet-rulings), and the like that were of similar value, that would go a long way.

[Rebonack]

I prefer taking a slightly different route, if nerfing these things is required so martials don't get totally hamstrung by the changes.

You can now power attack (or called shot) with any martial or simple weapon. You don't apply your prof bonus to the attack roll and deal bonus damage equal to twice your prof bonus if you hit.

PAM loses the bonus action attack. SS/GWM lose the power attack effects. All three become half feats.

[Keravath]

I can see it being an issue in AL. But then, are houserules allowed in AL?

House rules aren't allowed in AL. So the suggestions in the thread can't be applied there.

However, in the past, magic weapon availability was an issue for polearm builds in general since there weren't very many adventures in which they dropped though it was possible to trade for appropriate magic weapons at conventions. However, the revised season 8 DDAL treasure rules have effectively removed any restrictions imposed by availability in modules for magical weapons or armor since everything up to +3 weapons and armor can be purchased for treasure points at the appropriate tier.

[ad_hoc]

If a player has been using a pole arm since level 1 or 4 with the feat, and he's now level 12 yet still does not have a magical pole arm, the problem is the DM is a donkey cavity. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway. If Adventure League refuses to allow Pole Arm Master feat players access to magical pole arms, take your complaints to the powers that be who run Adventure League.

Or they're just playing 5e. There are no magic item shops in 5e. This isn't 3e. If you want there to be I'm not saying it's wrong, but don't tell other people they're playing wrong, esp. since this is how it is designed.

People know that going in. Many people like magic items to be actual treasure; to be exciting. To be something other than their next power at level up. There are already plenty of those, we don't need 'holy avenger of your choice' at Paladin level 11.

The Holy Avenger is a 3% chance on Table I. There is an 8% chance of getting Table I in an 11-16 Treasure Hoard and a 20% chance of getting Table I (w/1d4 rolls) in Treasure Hoard 17-20.

An average party will have 12 rolls on the 11-16 Treasure Hoard table by the time they get to level 17. So on average, 1 roll on Table I, for a 3% chance of getting a Holy Avenger before level 17. Your table may have buckets of super powerful magic items, but that is not the norm. And other people are not doing it wrong by playing differently.

I realize Holy Avenger is just 1 example you gave, but I want to drive home how out of the norm your game is.

(side note: This is also answers the question to all those threads complaining about the versatile property. This board makes some weird assumptions about the game that then are complained about because they don't make sense with those assumptions. Want a 2handed sword but find a kickass Longsword? Well you're in luck because it's versatile.)

[Pex]

Or an appropriate roll on the treasure table.

There is, however, no table for rolling type of weapon for things like Weapon +1, if it should come up.


That'd be a house-ruled custom magic item.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. But more importantly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not doing that either.

I argue it is wrong not to do that. The tables do not dictate the game to the DM. He can still use them, but if he gets "weapon +1" why would he absolutely refuse to make it a pole arm for the PC who's been using one since level 1? Same thing for something more fancy like +1d6 fire damage or glows when undead are nearby and +1d6 radiant damage against undead only when not using a table and just declared what magic weapon to provide. The DM can make a story out of it all he wants if he deems such a magical pole arm is too obscure to be found so commonly. It could be a Special Reward. It could be a Legendary Quest. Or the DM can just be nice in giving a PC a magic weapon in the form he likes when he's ready for the party to have magic weapons for the sake of being nice.

[Xetheral]

Personally, I don't find PAM (or GWM or Sharpshooter) particularly unbalanced. That's based both on a whiteroom analysis and also from the fact that all three feats are uncommon picks at my table. (Oddly enough, observant is actually the most common pick for PCs at my table and at tables I've played at, by a healthy margin.)


Or they're just playing 5e. There are no magic item shops in 5e. This isn't 3e. If you want there to be I'm not saying it's wrong, but don't tell other people they're playing wrong, esp. since this is how it is designed.

People know that going in. Many people like magic items to be actual treasure; to be exciting. To be something other than their next power at level up. There are already plenty of those, we don't need 'holy avenger of your choice' at Paladin level 11.

The Holy Avenger is a 3% chance on Table I. There is an 8% chance of getting Table I in an 11-16 Treasure Hoard and a 20% chance of getting Table I (w/1d4 rolls) in Treasure Hoard 17-20.

An average party will have 12 rolls on the 11-16 Treasure Hoard table by the time they get to level 17. So on average, 1 roll on Table I, for a 3% chance of getting a Holy Avenger before level 17. Your table may have buckets of super powerful magic items, but that is not the norm. And other people are not doing it wrong by playing differently.

I realize Holy Avenger is just 1 example you gave, but I want to drive home how out of the norm your game is.

(side note: This is also answers the question to all those threads complaining about the versatile property. This board makes some weird assumptions about the game that then are complained about because they don't make sense with those assumptions. Want a 2handed sword but find a kickass Longsword? Well you're in luck because it's versatile.)

I'd need statistical evidence before I'd agree that rolling on Treasure Tables is the "norm". To qualify as a norm, I would expect a particular treasure generation method to be used by at least a clear plurality of tables, but there are so many ways to generate treasure that I would be surprised if any of them has a clear plurality.

Personally, I would guess that the most common treasure generation methods are "DM Fiat" and "As Listed in Published Adventure". But that's based on anecdotal evidence.

[ad_hoc]

I'd need statistical evidence before I'd agree that rolling on Treasure Tables is the "norm".

I didn't say that.

[Xetheral]

I didn't say that.

Then evidently I'm misinterpreting your post.

[ad_hoc]

Then evidently I'm misinterpreting your post.

Yeah, just saying that Pex' game is not the norm. Not in distribution and certainly not in power.

I think you're right about using the treasure specified in published adventures as the most common.

At any rate, the main point is that 5e is built so that tables can play without having players pick out their items (in one form or another). In fact, that is the default. I think it is one of the best aspects of 5e. It was one of the things I disliked most about 3e. I want my treasure to be treasure, not just another power on my sheet.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I don't think PAM, GWM, or Sentinel or others are "overpowered" by themselves. The problem, as is often the case in these games, is how they work stacked together.

[Angelalex242]

PAM also carries an opportunity cost...

Basically, there's no really good polearms out there, the way there's Holy Avengers and Vorpal Swords and what not.

You've got, what, trident of warnings and trident of fish command?

[Mikal]

I don't think PAM, GWM, or Sentinel or others are "overpowered" by themselves. The problem, as is often the case in these games, is how they work stacked together.

Meh. To work together requires three out of five to seven ASIs (or two it variant human)

Using anywhere from 30 to 40% of ones resources to get a good melee trick combination working isn’t unbalanced.

[microstyles]

Booo, that removes my favorite idea for sentinel, finding a way to get a flying dragon to provoke an AoO and using a whip to make them sit/fall to the ground.

Use Enlarge :smallsmile:


Basically, there's no really good polearms out there, the way there's Holy Avengers and Vorpal Swords and what not.

You've got, what, trident of warnings and trident of fish command?

Wow not even that many, tridents aren't polearms. At a quick scan of the DMG I didn't see any, so you're stuck with generic +1/2/3, warning, and vicious weapons unless your DM counts a halberd as an axe or a glaive as a sword or something. In fact, the vast majority of DMG magic weapons are swords. That does handle a fair amount of melee styles between greatsword/longsword/rapier/scimitar/shortsword, but there's no reach weapons, crossbows, and only one bow that I saw. I guess that's just how the stock magic items are.

[Pex]

Yeah, just saying that Pex' game is not the norm. Not in distribution and certainly not in power.

I think you're right about using the treasure specified in published adventures as the most common.

At any rate, the main point is that 5e is built so that tables can play without having players pick out their items (in one form or another). In fact, that is the default. I think it is one of the best aspects of 5e. It was one of the things I disliked most about 3e. I want my treasure to be treasure, not just another power on my sheet.

It's not about "my game". There is no reason for a DM who provides for magic weapons to absolutely deny forever a magical pole arm when a PC has Pole Arm Mastery. The DM outranks all treasure tables.

[Rowan Wolf]

You could do something like they did for the Arcanis preview document and have GWM, PAM, CBE, and SS be 'styles' and only allow the use of one at a time.

[Willie the Duck]

It's not about "my game". There is no reason for a DM who provides for magic weapons to absolutely deny forever a magical pole arm when a PC has Pole Arm Mastery.

But no one was arguing for that.


The DM outranks all treasure tables.

And once again, we are back at, "yes, and...?"
I think that makes a point inside your own mind, that you simply haven't articulated for the rest of us.

You made a statement of judgment upon theoretical DMs expecting them to provide specific amounts of specific magic item ("If a player has been using a pole arm since level 1 or 4 with the feat, and he's now level 12 yet still does not have a magical pole arm, the problem is the DM is a donkey cavity."/"There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway."). People disagree and are kind of expecting you to back it up, and not with straw scenarios of DMs "absolutely deny[ing] forever" a magic polearm.

[Rowan Wolf]

You could do something like they did for the Arcanis preview document and have GWM, PAM, CBE, and SS be 'styles' and only allow the use of one at a time.

[stoutstien]

I don't think using magical weapon availability as amedium to balance different fighting styles is a good idea.
I think the discussion needs to be split into two different mechanical approaches Adventure League and general play should not be using the same discussion because they have two different rule sets.

[Pex]

But no one was arguing for that.



And once again, we are back at, "yes, and...?"
I think that makes a point inside your own mind, that you simply haven't articulated for the rest of us.

You made a statement of judgment upon theoretical DMs expecting them to provide specific amounts of specific magic item ("If a player has been using a pole arm since level 1 or 4 with the feat, and he's now level 12 yet still does not have a magical pole arm, the problem is the DM is a donkey cavity."/"There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway."). People disagree and are kind of expecting you to back it up, and not with straw scenarios of DMs "absolutely deny[ing] forever" a magic polearm.

You haven't been paying attention.

[Tanarii]

I argue it is wrong not to do that. The tables do not dictate the game to the DM. He can still use them, but if he gets "weapon +1" why would he absolutely refuse to make it a pole arm for the PC who's been using one since level 1? Same thing for something more fancy like +1d6 fire damage or glows when undead are nearby and +1d6 radiant damage against undead only when not using a table and just declared what magic weapon to provide. The DM can make a story out of it all he wants if he deems such a magical pole arm is too obscure to be found so commonly. It could be a Special Reward. It could be a Legendary Quest. Or the DM can just be nice in giving a PC a magic weapon in the form he likes when he's ready for the party to have magic weapons for the sake of being nice.Your player entitlement is running especially strong right now. :smallyuk:


I don't think using magical weapon availability as amedium to balance different fighting styles is a good idea.Until 3e, it was an important consideration in D&D. And even in 3e I don't recall magic marts being a required thing, although I could be wrong about that. It's been a while.

That said, can't control the tangent a thread goes in. If folks want to argue about if players should expect to get certain magic items or not, it's gonna happen. :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

In adventure league, there is no 'nice.'

There's 'you unlock' (used to be get) only the treasure the module says you get and nothing else.

Thus, for AL play, lack of magic item availability is the balance.

[Beelzebubba]

I assumed that was what was meant. Would the best wording be: "If you miss with one or more attacks that are part of an Attack action ..."?

Well, not quite, because I was thinking of still enabling a character class with a single melee attack (who never gets Extra Attack) to get a second attack. Mainly to allow a non-Fighter to use feats to become a bit more capable as a fighter, in the same way Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster allow a fighter to become a bit of a caster.

That 2nd attack is the only thing that (for example) made me consider the feat as a Druid, since they don't have access to pole-arms, and being able to occasionally land 2 hits in a round (and sometimes a third on a Reaction) would make a Shillelagh quarterstaff worthwhile beyond level 5.

It makes it a bit fidgety though, since it means making the 'extra attack if miss' only apply to Extra Attack.

After thinking about it a little more though, 'if one of your attacks misses in a turn, get a Bonus Action to do a haft strike' makes for more reliable damage, rather than potentially higher damage, and that's probably enough.

[Willie the Duck]

You haven't been paying attention.

No, I'm suggesting you step up your argumentation game, if you want to convince anyone. Or did you mean I wasn't noticing people here in this thread suggesting absolutely denying forever a magical polearm? Because you are right, I am missing it.


That 2nd attack is the only thing that (for example) made me consider the feat as a Druid, since they don't have access to pole-arms, and being able to occasionally land 2 hits in a round (and sometimes a third on a Reaction) would make a Shillelagh quarterstaff worthwhile beyond level 5.

It makes it a bit fidgety though, since it means making the 'extra attack if miss' only apply to Extra Attack.

While we are in house-rule-space, why not split the feat out into two separate entities-one for quarterstaff wielders and one for pikey-glaivey-halberdy types? Quarterstaffers can get a guaranteed bonus-action attack, since that's most of what they get out of their feat, while the guys who affix sharp bits get a only-if-first-attack-hits version, but with all the other benefits.

[ad_hoc]

No, I'm suggesting you step up your argumentation game, if you want to convince anyone. Or did you mean I wasn't noticing people here in this thread suggesting absolutely denying forever a magical polearm? Because you are right, I am missing it.

Denying is the wrong framing. But yeah, it is unlikely for a party to find a magic polearm in their travels at our table.

We have a table that we roll on for magic weapons and a polearm is about a 7% chance. So 1 in 5 or 6 campaigns. It hasn't actually happened yet but I'm sure it will make for a memorable character when it does.

I think the majority of tables just use the treasure that is specified in adventures.

[Man_Over_Game]

All in all, it's easier to assume there's not going to be any magical polearms, and if there were going to be, it would be because the DM makes an active choice in providing one.

But despite that, does that matter? When you can only attune to 3 items anyway, and you're probably the only one using Heavy Armor, you are likely to do fine without one as a PAM Fighter.

I honestly don't think it's worth considering the lack of polearms a balance concern for PAMs.

------------------------------------------------

PAM + Sentinel is a useful tool, but it doesn't unbalance things too much, since it's likely to only be used once/twice in combat. The main issue is that PAM gives you 2 additional hits per turn using resources that don't come up often for Fighters (Reaction, Bonus Action) and GWM isn't designed for a character that can attack 3 times a round at level 4, and 4 times at level 5.

Just make GWM only work when you use the Attack Action. Very few methods allow a player to attack with a heavy weapon with a bonus action, and AoO are rare unless you have some means of forcing them, so this will only hurt niche builds (such as a feat stacking PAM Fighter). Coincidentally, this also injures Mage Slayer + GWM slightly, but Mage Slayer is probably better for faster classes anyway.

[NaughtyTiger]

In AL, it's definitely an issue.
not anymore. AL S8, you can just buy any +x weapon with treasure points.

[Pex]

Your player entitlement is running especially strong right now. :smallyuk:



You say that like it's a bad thing. Why would it be so terrible for a player to have a Nice Thing?


Denying is the wrong framing. But yeah, it is unlikely for a party to find a magic polearm in their travels at our table.

We have a table that we roll on for magic weapons and a polearm is about a 7% chance. So 1 in 5 or 6 campaigns. It hasn't actually happened yet but I'm sure it will make for a memorable character when it does.

I think the majority of tables just use the treasure that is specified in adventures.

And I'm saying a DM can and should ignore what's printed and give the Pole Arm Master player a magical Pole Arm version of whatever is there or make something up. There's no reason to deny the player, and it's a poor excuse to do so to "balance" the feat.

[ad_hoc]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why would it be so terrible for a player to have a Nice Thing?



And I'm saying a DM can and should ignore what's printed and give the Pole Arm Master player a magical Pole Arm version of whatever is there or make something up. There's no reason to deny the player, and it's a poor excuse to do so to "balance" the feat.

It isn't denying the player.

Not allowing a Fighter to use Action Surge is denying them.

A specific magic item not showing up in the game is not a denial.

As said before, we like to treasure to be special rather than just another power gained on level up.

We had a game where the players rolled low on many treasure hoards and had to get by without many items. It was fun.

We had a game once where the Holy Avenger showed up on the 2nd session of the campaign (that was due to a campaign specific rule but it was still about 2-4% for it to come that early if I remember correctly). That was fun too.

Adapting to magic items both in play style and character growth is fun for us. Getting extra treasure by doing well in the game, either finding hoards during the adventure or just completing it (instead of running away when the monsters are too much) is fun for us.

Treasure isn't assumed, it's extra. It's a joy every time.

I would hate for anyone to deny us that fun.

[Sigreid]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why would it be so terrible for a player to have a Nice Thing?



And I'm saying a DM can and should ignore what's printed and give the Pole Arm Master player a magical Pole Arm version of whatever is there or make something up. There's no reason to deny the player, and it's a poor excuse to do so to "balance" the feat.

As a DM I dont go out of my way to cater to the players. If a player asked, I would let them research and go try to find something specific.

[ciarannihill]

As a DM I dont go out of my way to cater to the players. If a player asked, I would let them research and go try to find something specific.

This seems like a way to make the rarity of magical polearms into the drive of a smaller character arc -- they find out about a specific artifact that meshes with their combat style, research where and when it has changed hands and finds out who (or what) owns it presently. Then there's acquiring it. Seems like a cool way to make player agency the drive for a magic item, plus when they get it finally at the end of the arc it'll mean that much more to them because of the investment they made into getting it. Seems cool, sounds fun, might steal.

[Sigreid]

Steal away. I think it's just normal DMing.

[1Pirate]

You could just stick a level minimum on the feat. Those “broken” feats will ”unbreak” around level 12-14 at the latest as monsters get more numerous, higher AC, more hit points, or any combination of the three.

[BoxANT]

it doesn't need balancing



PAM+Sentinel are only an issue if you include Tunnel Fighter (unlimited OoA), otherwise it's just 1 reaction, not game breaking.

PAM+GWM is powerful for sure, but so is Crossbow Expert + SS, and that can be done at range. But I mean, without those feats, martial classes have a hard time competing with casters at higher levels.

[stoutstien]

PAM+GWM is powerful for sure, but so is Crossbow Expert + SS, and that can be done at range. But I mean, without those feats, martial classes have a hard time competing with casters at higher levels.

Ding ding! A class shouldn't need feats to keep up with the Jones so to speak. Feats are an optional rule according to the phb.(pg 164)
But if you take them out some classes will fall behind in every aspect of the game.
One of the reasons why I think we should be able to roll aspects of the great weapon feat into any class that feels it needed. Fighter, ranger, barbarian, and pally (not needed but for consistently).
What if we just attached aspects of the polearm feat to the weapons themselves?

[Astofel]

When people say "magic polearms are rare" what I hear is "I, the DM, have arbitrarily decided that magic polearms basically don't exist so woe is you to all polearm-wielding players who just want to overcome mundane weapon resistance". Really, ingame mundane polearms aren't any rarer than mundane swords. They both exist on the main weapon table and the game assumes that players could walk into any generic equipment shop and buy either of them. Presumably the PCs aren't this shop's only customers, and they sell weapons, including polearms, to other people, and have been doing so for a while. Realistically, then, why would the ratio of mundane swords:magic swords be significantly different from that of mundane polearms:magic polearms? The only reason people think magic polearms are rare is because the 5e designers neglected to include very many of them in the DMG.

No, I'm not an entitled player, I'm pretty much a full-time DM. I just fail to see any reasons to have a polearm-wielding player be significantly behind on cool loot than his more conventional weapon-wielding buddies.

[Pex]

When people say "magic polearms are rare" what I hear is "I, the DM, have arbitrarily decided that magic polearms basically don't exist so woe is you to all polearm-wielding players who just want to overcome mundane weapon resistance". Really, ingame mundane polearms aren't any rarer than mundane swords. They both exist on the main weapon table and the game assumes that players could walk into any generic equipment shop and buy either of them. Presumably the PCs aren't this shop's only customers, and they sell weapons, including polearms, to other people, and have been doing so for a while. Realistically, then, why would the ratio of mundane swords:magic swords be significantly different from that of mundane polearms:magic polearms? The only reason people think magic polearms are rare is because the 5e designers neglected to include very many of them in the DMG.

No, I'm not an entitled player, I'm pretty much a full-time DM. I just fail to see any reasons to have a polearm-wielding player be significantly behind on cool loot than his more conventional weapon-wielding buddies.

Thank you!

Someone gets it.

[Nifft]

Ding ding! A class shouldn't need feats to keep up with the Jones so to speak. Feats are an optional rule according to the phb.(pg 164)
But if you take them out some classes will fall behind in every aspect of the game.
One of the reasons why I think we should be able to roll aspects of the great weapon feat into any class that feels it needed. Fighter, ranger, barbarian, and pally (not needed but for consistently).
What if we just attached aspects of the polearm feat to the weapons themselves?

I like this idea and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[mephnick]

the game assumes that players could walk into any generic equipment shop and buy either of them. .

Not really. The DMG basically says "most magic items aren't assumed to be for sale and if they are it isn't as easy as picking it up off a shelf. However, here's some prices if you want to be a 3.5 tool and have common magic shops."

[Nifft]

Not really. The DMG basically says "most magic items aren't assumed to be for sale and if they are it isn't as easy as picking it up off a shelf. However, here's some prices if you want to be a 3.5 tool and have common magic shops."

*checks my sheet*

Well I do seem to have 3.5e tool proficiency...

[Pex]

Not really. The DMG basically says "most magic items aren't assumed to be for sale and if they are it isn't as easy as picking it up off a shelf. However, here's some prices if you want to be a 3.5 tool and have common magic shops."

He didn't say you can buy magic weapons at a magic shop. He said you can buy mundane weapons at a mundane shop. You can buy a mundane pole arm or a mundane sword and presumably they also sell those things to other people. Since other people buy pole arms pole arm use isn't rare. Since pole arm use isn't rare, the existence of magical pole arms is not rarer than magic swords because they are equivalently desired to have been made when ever and by whomever made them.

[ad_hoc]

He didn't say you can buy magic weapons at a magic shop. He said you can buy mundane weapons at a mundane shop. You can buy a mundane pole arm or a mundane sword and presumably they also sell those things to other people. Since other people buy pole arms pole arm use isn't rare. Since pole arm use isn't rare, the existence of magical pole arms is not rarer than magic swords because they are equivalently desired to have been made when ever and by whomever made them.

So what does your table do with all those magic blowguns?

[stoutstien]

So what does your table do with all those magic blowguns?

Strap them all together and attach a blacksmiths Bellow to make a shoulder mounted bag pipe Gatling gun

[Astofel]

So what does your table do with all those magic blowguns?

People don't buy blowguns. People do buy polearms. When I get players that use blowguns as a main weapon, then I'll make magic blowguns available to them, although they might have to find a way to enchant it themselves. The amount of magic <weapon> in existence is directly proportional to the amount of people who use said weapon. That said it might be fun to just randomly drop a magic blowgun with some cool unique properties into my campaign and see what my players do with it...

[ad_hoc]

People don't buy blowguns. People do buy polearms. When I get players that use blowguns as a main weapon, then I'll make magic blowguns available to them, although they might have to find a way to enchant it themselves. The amount of magic <weapon> in existence is directly proportional to the amount of people who use said weapon. That said it might be fun to just randomly drop a magic blowgun with some cool unique properties into my campaign and see what my players do with it...

But...blowguns exist on the weapons table and can be bought just the same as a sword.

I'm just poking fun at how ridiculous you're being but that has strayed from the point.

That is, you can play with magic shops and super powerful items or whatever, but the game doesn't assume it. When you do one thing it has an effect on other things.

Rolling for stats, multiclassing, feats, choosing magic items, having powerful magic items, only having 1 encounter per long rest, etc. These are all going to both make the game easier and make other things in the game better or worse.

PAM is much more powerful in a game where players roll for stats and choose magic items. Feats and the rest of the variants can't all be balanced against each other. That said I do think PAM is poorly designed. I don't think it sees this much popularity at most tables because most tables aren't going to have magic polearms all over the place.

[Sception]

Refusing to include magic polearms in your game to neef PAM is every bit as rediculous as refusing to include magic heavy weapons because you think GWM is too strong, or refusing to include magic ranged weapons because you think sharpshooter is too strong. It's a jerk move. If you as a dm have so much of a problem with a feat that you feel a need to nerf it, than do so directly so at least your players know what's up.

As for how to nerf it if you think it is a problem, I'd remove quarterstaffs and add long spears (long spears are polearms, quarterstaffs aren't, and PAM is a weird style to imagine one handed), make the attack on entering reach it's own reaction, not an opp attack, and maybe require a bonus action to prepare, and finally make weapon lose reach and heavy on the regular bonus action attack.

Cuts down a lot of the ott stacking synergies with gwm (the bonus damage there wasnt meant to apply to twf styles, or else there'd be a one handed equivalent, puts it on par with a great weapon plus bonus action unarmed or natural attack) and sentinel (which is a tanking feat that is supposed to stop enemies getting away from you, not approaching you in the first place). Also maybe makes the reaction and bonus attacks an either or situation, if you think pam is too good just on its own.

And then you can feel free to include as many magic halberds and glaives and long spears as you do magic greatswords and mauls and scimitars. They're not rare exotic weapons, after all, and your game would do better with some item variety apart from just 'anything that my player's cant use'.

[Sigreid]

When people say "magic polearms are rare" what I hear is "I, the DM, have arbitrarily decided that magic polearms basically don't exist so woe is you to all polearm-wielding players who just want to overcome mundane weapon resistance". Really, ingame mundane polearms aren't any rarer than mundane swords. They both exist on the main weapon table and the game assumes that players could walk into any generic equipment shop and buy either of them. Presumably the PCs aren't this shop's only customers, and they sell weapons, including polearms, to other people, and have been doing so for a while. Realistically, then, why would the ratio of mundane swords:magic swords be significantly different from that of mundane polearms:magic polearms? The only reason people think magic polearms are rare is because the 5e designers neglected to include very many of them in the DMG.

No, I'm not an entitled player, I'm pretty much a full-time DM. I just fail to see any reasons to have a polearm-wielding player be significantly behind on cool loot than his more conventional weapon-wielding buddies.

It's tradition really. I think the tradition started based on the creators hearing about more magic swords in myth and legend than other weapons.

[Willie the Duck]

When people say "magic polearms are rare" what I hear is "I, the DM, have arbitrarily decided that magic polearms basically don't exist so woe is you to all polearm-wielding players who just want to overcome mundane weapon resistance".

You can hear that if you want to, but it isn't what people are saying. Or at least, it isn't inherently what they are saying. There is a huge excluded middle you are neglecting. It can be as simple as a DM deciding that they will tilt random +1-3 items that show up to be in favor of their PC's preferred weapon, but a holy avenger is still going to be a sword. It can be as simple as the DM giving no preference on weapons, and choosing randomly (saying "there are 37 weapons on the weapon chart, and only four of them fall under the PAM-user-would-want umbrella --3 that one build favors, 1 that the other build would"). It can be as simple as running your own campaign between adventures, but playing the published adventures straight when you are running one of them. It can also be simply running a genuine sandbox and stating, "if you are looking for magic polearms, I would suggest adventuring in nations well known for their polearm use," in which case you know what to do, but check with your other goals and party members. There are lots of reasons that polearms might be rare that don't fit under the category of arbitrary or malevolent DM.


No, I'm not an entitled player, I'm pretty much a full-time DM. I just fail to see any reasons to have a polearm-wielding player be significantly behind on cool loot than his more conventional weapon-wielding buddies.

Overall, I agree that X should not be behind Y, and in my own mental re-write of 5e, that's what I would like to do. However, I think that specialization ought to come with an opportunity-cost in terms of breadth or adaptability. I would prefer it to be that a: polearm build, longbow build, warhammer and shield build, Greataxe build, etc. etc. etc. all be about equal, but each be a little screwed when their weapon/armor of choice doesn't show up in the treasure of the day. Whereas the fighter who took the defensive fighting style, has about equal Strength and Dexterity scores, and has not taken any of the 'necessitates specific arms/armor' feats like PAM, GWM, HAM, etc. has no real benefit except that they can switch-hit as the occasion presents itself. That too ought to be a valid character concept with its own rewards.

[Tanarii]

As a DM I dont go out of my way to cater to the players. If a player asked, I would let them research and go try to find something specific.Generally speaking, that's my approach too. If a player wants a specific item or spell or piece of knowledge or whatever, they spend downtime to research how to make it or find it, during which time they can't use that character in adventures. Then they put a party together to go get it, if needed. That's a non-significant expenditure in a campaign where time and sessions go on regardless, but some players want something specific enough that it's not uncommon.


You could just stick a level minimum on the feat. Those “broken” feats will ”unbreak” around level 12-14 at the latest as monsters get more numerous, higher AC, more hit points, or any combination of the three.

Ding ding! A class shouldn't need feats to keep up with the Jones so to speak. Feats are an optional rule according to the phb.(pg 164)
But if you take them out some classes will fall behind in every aspect of the game.
I'm guessing you guys are unaware of Kryx's various analysis on GWM and PAM, and damage in general over the adventuring day. Suffice to say the feats don't drop off at higher levels, and they aren't needed to make any classes viable. They roundly dominate at all levels, and put those using them far ahead of others. Not just on par.

Edit:

So what does your table do with all those magic blowguns?You've been using donjon to generate your magical Treasure Hoards have you? :smallamused:

Edit2:


After thinking about it a little more though, 'if one of your attacks misses in a turn, get a Bonus Action to do a haft strike' makes for more reliable damage, rather than potentially higher damage, and that's probably enough.
Yes sorry, that's what I thought you meant. I like it as a house rule. I was just trying to word it so it only happened if your attacks come from the Attack action. Although there are very few free attack actions in the game. But it would stop it from being triggered by (for example) Whirlwind Attack. It keeps it in line with the original Feat.

So I was thinking: "if you take the Attack action on your turn, and one or more of your attacks miss, you may make a Haft Strike as a Bonus Action."

This does mean the Haft Strike must occur after other attacks. Or at least, after at least one other attack (that misses).

[Pex]

Generally speaking, that's my approach too. If a player wants a specific item or spell or piece of knowledge or whatever, they spend downtime to research how to make it or find it, during which time they can't use that character in adventures. Then they put a party together to go get it, if needed. That's a non-significant expenditure in a campaign where time and sessions go on regardless, but some players want something specific enough that it's not uncommon.


I find it bad form to forbid a player of playing his character as a means to balance something. I'm well aware the rules do that in creating magic items because of how long it takes, and I think those rules are garbage. It's like the ultimate punishing a player for doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

It's different if it's built into the game system. Ars Magica does this where you are supposed to have a Companion to play when your Magus is doing magical research. Different games will have different ratios of how often you play your Companion or Magus, but it is part of the game system.

However, when I'm told I can't play my character for awhile because of balance that has nothing really to do with the game, I can see myself being passive aggressive about it. I won't play another character or NPC who was traveling with us temporarily. I'd probably not come to game sessions at all and have the DM call me when I can play again well aware I risk never getting the call, but I wouldn't be upset about that. I'm looking for another group to play in. If the world is destroyed since I didn't go on the stop the Doom Cult adventure because I couldn't play wanting to do something, the world needed to be destroyed. The Geek in "Cabin in the Woods" was right.

[Sigreid]

I find it bad form to forbid a player of playing his character as a means to balance something. I'm well aware the rules do that in creating magic items because of how long it takes, and I think those rules are garbage. It's like the ultimate punishing a player for doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

It's different if it's built into the game system. Ars Magica does this where you are supposed to have a Companion to play when your Magus is doing magical research. Different games will have different ratios of how often you play your Companion or Magus, but it is part of the game system.

However, when I'm told I can't play my character for awhile because of balance that has nothing really to do with the game, I can see myself being passive aggressive about it. I won't play another character or NPC who was traveling with us temporarily. I'd probably not come to game sessions at all and have the DM call me when I can play again well aware I risk never getting the call, but I wouldn't be upset about that. I'm looking for another group to play in. If the world is destroyed since I didn't go on the stop the Doom Cult adventure because I couldn't play wanting to do something, the world needed to be destroyed. The Geek in "Cabin in the Woods" was right.

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't have a character sit out adventure time for research. Either it is an adventure seeking the desired data or just like everyone else's down time you pay your money and roll your dice. From there, hopefully it's a party that will willingly help you find what your looking for. Just as hopefully you would willingly help them with their special task.

[Isaire]

I find it bad form to forbid a player of playing his character as a means to balance something. I'm well aware the rules do that in creating magic items because of how long it takes, and I think those rules are garbage. It's like the ultimate punishing a player for doing what his character is supposed to be doing.

It's different if it's built into the game system. Ars Magica does this where you are supposed to have a Companion to play when your Magus is doing magical research. Different games will have different ratios of how often you play your Companion or Magus, but it is part of the game system.

However, when I'm told I can't play my character for awhile because of balance that has nothing really to do with the game, I can see myself being passive aggressive about it. I won't play another character or NPC who was traveling with us temporarily. I'd probably not come to game sessions at all and have the DM call me when I can play again well aware I risk never getting the call, but I wouldn't be upset about that. I'm looking for another group to play in. If the world is destroyed since I didn't go on the stop the Doom Cult adventure because I couldn't play wanting to do something, the world needed to be destroyed. The Geek in "Cabin in the Woods" was right.

Well, you don't have to look out that particular magic item in that scenario, though I agree that I personally would not run it that way. I'm kind of surprised that you would leave a table because the DM won't give you the magic item of your choice. You know that even a polearm user can use a magic sword when you need to bypass resistances, and use a polearm at other times, right? It just is not that big a deal.

[Sigreid]

Well, you don't have to look out that particular magic item in that scenario, though I agree that I personally would not run it that way. I'm kind of surprised that you would leave a table because the DM won't give you the magic item of your choice. You know that even a polearm user can use a magic sword when you need to bypass resistances, and use a polearm at other times, right? It just is not that big a deal.

I can twist my view to see his point. If everyone else in the party is getting the stuff that makes them giggle with delight but one character never gets an item they would use, it can be frustrating.

[Willie the Duck]

I can twist my view to see his point. If everyone else in the party is getting the stuff that makes them giggle with delight but one character never gets an item they would use, it can be frustrating.

Of course it can. And if everyone else were really promoting making a world devoid of magic polearms, I would jump over to the opposing side. However, since mostly people seem to be defending that idea of letting the magic weapon distribution lies as rolled/set-up, and anyone who actively chose to specialize in one specific thing will have to wait for it to come up, it keeps feeling like our arguments are being mischaracterized (which makes no one amenable).

[Sigreid]

Of course it can. And if everyone else were really promoting making a world devoid of magic polearms, I would jump over to the opposing side. However, since mostly people seem to be defending that idea of letting the magic weapon distribution lies as rolled/set-up, and anyone who actively chose to specialize in one specific thing will have to wait for it to come up, it keeps feeling like our arguments are being mischaracterized (which makes no one amenable).

Yeah, as I states earlier, I roll for treasure or use what is in a module. If anyone wants a specific treasure, they have to be proactive and not passively expect to get it. And we all know or can look at what the tables favor when making our choices.

[Tanarii]

I find it bad form to forbid a player of playing his character as a means to balance something. I'm well aware the rules do that in creating magic items because of how long it takes, and I think those rules are garbage. It's like the ultimate punishing a player for doing what his character is supposed to be doing.
Cool.

I find it bad form for players to expect a specific magic items when the game makes no such assumptions, and to call it "punishment" when their sense of entitlement (literally that they're entitled to specific magic items) isn't rewarded.

[stoutstien]

Okay so I have probably spent hours trying to balance weapons, feats/classes and if I was better at formatting on this site I'd probably just post it all. But just talking about polearm master I presented it to my tables just like this:
Pole arm master. You have become adept in the use of shafted weapons.

When wielding a spear, quarterstaff, halberd, glaive, or trident in two hands you can make an attack with the aft portion of your weapon on a missed weapon attack on your turn as a . This attack is 1d4 blunt.(key here is weapon is in two hands and only comes online on a miss.)

When a creature enters your reach while wielding one of the aforementioned weapons or a Pike you can preform a single attack as a reaction. This attack is made with advatage with a pike
(note, not an attack of opportunity so doesn't stack with Sentinel.)

I tack on a ribbon at the end depending on the experience of the players.
For the younger players I usually given plus one hit and for the older player that want more in depth I count all polearms to be half weight while equipped or carried.

[Pex]

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't have a character sit out adventure time for research. Either it is an adventure seeking the desired data or just like everyone else's down time you pay your money and roll your dice. From there, hopefully it's a party that will willingly help you find what your looking for. Just as hopefully you would willingly help them with their special task.

If the party needs to stop the Cult of Doom, I'll stop the Cult and put off my downtime for afterwards. No problem there. Do downtime stuff during downtime. When doing downtime stuff means I can't play during playtime for how dare I do downtime stuff, then maybe it's the playtime that's not important.


Well, you don't have to look out that particular magic item in that scenario, though I agree that I personally would not run it that way. I'm kind of surprised that you would leave a table because the DM won't give you the magic item of your choice. You know that even a polearm user can use a magic sword when you need to bypass resistances, and use a polearm at other times, right? It just is not that big a deal.

It's not about the magic item. It's about telling me I can't play.


Cool.

I find it bad form for players to expect a specific magic items when the game makes no such assumptions, and to call it "punishment" when their sense of entitlement (literally that they're entitled to specific magic items) isn't rewarded.

It's not about getting a specific magic item. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. Tables or no tables. Module or homebrew. The DM decides what magic items exist in the campaign. There is no reason for the DM to absolutely refuse providing for a magic weapon in a form a player likes when the DM decides the party will get magic weapons. It's not about entitlement. It's about furthering the fun.

[Sigreid]

If the party needs to stop the Cult of Doom, I'll stop the Cult and put off my downtime for afterwards. No problem there. Do downtime stuff during downtime. When doing downtime stuff means I can't play during playtime for how dare I do downtime stuff, then maybe it's the playtime that's not important.


Yeah, I don't do a lot of emergency save the world type things. The campaign is sand box so the party can take time off nearly whenever they want (some exceptions) and can help guide the course of the campaign simply by telling me what their characters what to try to accomplish.

[Tanarii]

It's not about getting a specific magic item. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. Tables or no tables. Module or homebrew. The DM decides what magic items exist in the campaign. There is no reason for the DM to absolutely refuse providing for a magic weapon in a form a player likes when the DM decides the party will get magic weapons. It's not about entitlement. It's about furthering the fun.
How exactly is that not about getting a specific magic item?

Or are you saying (for example) since Weapon +1 can be any form of weapon, the DM should choose one the players will want to use? Or even let the player choose?

I have no problem if DMs feel inclined to do that. One of my first responses on this did tangent was that the DMG doesn't give us a way to handle determining the specific form of many magic weapons.

But that also means the DM is doing nothing wrong if she uses some other method. There's no specified rules for it, and that means any assumptions on the part of the players on the way they want or prefer things to be handled are going to need to be communicated to the DM for their consideration.

And that also generally means it's best not approached with an attitude of entitlement, that they deserve it to be handled a specific way, and that they are being punished because they're not being rewarded the specific way they want.

And at this point, I'm going to remind you that a lack of a reward is not a punishment.

[microstyles]

2) for the opportunity attack when entering the threatened area:
- change it to a generic reaction instead of an opportunity attack. This prevents several nasty stacking effects.

It just occurred to me that outside of the speed=0 Sentinel interaction, this is actually a minor buff since hostile creatures can't disengage to avoid the reaction attack. Even the "no disengage" Sentinel bullet specifies they have to be "leaving your reach". Mostly relevant for enemy Goblins and Rogues, who can disengage as a bonus.

[Astofel]

How exactly is that not about getting a specific magic item?

Or are you saying (for example) since Weapon +1 can be any form of weapon, the DM should choose one the players will want to use? Or even let the player choose?

I have no problem if DMs feel inclined to do that. One of my first responses on this did tangent was that the DMG doesn't give us a way to handle determining the specific form of many magic weapons.

But that also means the DM is doing nothing wrong if she uses some other method. There's no specified rules for it, and that means any assumptions on the part of the players on the way they want or prefer things to be handled are going to need to be communicated to the DM for their consideration.

And that also generally means it's best not approached with an attitude of entitlement, that they deserve it to be handled a specific way, and that they are being punished because they're not being rewarded the specific way they want.

And at this point, I'm going to remind you that a lack of a reward is not a punishment.

DM: You find a +1 longsword.
Sword-wielder: Awesome! Now I have three!
Polearm-wielder: Oh come on dude I still have nothing over here.

At some point, continuously choosing not to give out loot that suits a particular character best is just being a ****, especially when all the other characters have a weapon that suits them. Same with random tables: it is not fun as a player to sit there as the table generates sword after sword, while you're still there drumming your fingers waiting for the DM's dice to let you have nice things. I have a simple philosophy as a DM: just give the players what they want, unless a) it makes the game less fun for others at the table or b) you can increase the fun by holding out on giving the players the thing until later, giving them a greater sense of reward. Just like getting a holy avenger at 1st level feels strange and unearned, only getting your first +1 weapon at 17th level feel unnecessarily drawn out.

A lack of reward is not technically a punishment, but if I had a group of kids and I gave all of them candy except for the ones who were wearing red shirts, it would certainly feel arbitrary and unjust to them.

[ad_hoc]

Just like getting a holy avenger at 1st level feels strange and unearned,

We had a campaign where the party got the Holy Avenger at 3rd level and it was awesome.



A lack of reward is not technically a punishment, but if I had a group of kids and I gave all of them candy except for the ones who were wearing red shirts, it would certainly feel arbitrary and unjust to them.

Comparing yourself to a child is not casting yourself in a great light here.

At any rate, reasons have been stated which have been continually ignored. It isn't a matter of denial. Most groups just don't have the attitude that they should get to pick out their items. I find it to make for a boring and stale game. Did it with 3e and I'm glad to be done with it.

[Astofel]

We had a campaign where the party got the Holy Avenger at 3rd level and it was awesome.
Done right, I'm sure it could be awesome. I could picture a fun game where you find a holy avenger in a grimy goblin cave. How did it come to be there? Let's find out!



Comparing yourself to a child is not casting yourself in a great light here.
All right then, how about this. If I have a group of adult businessmen, and I give each of them $100 except for the ones who are wearing a red tie, is that not arbitrary and unfair? Or maybe I give them all fancy new ties in their favourite colour, except for the ones whose favourite colour is red, I give them green ties instead.


At any rate, reasons have been stated which have been continually ignored. It isn't a matter of denial. Most groups just don't have the attitude that they should get to pick out their items. I find it to make for a boring and stale game. Did it with 3e and I'm glad to be done with it.
I'm not advocating letting the players pick out exactly what magic items they get. For me at least, part of the fun of D&D is seeing what cool and unique items show up for you to use. But what wouldn't be fun for me is being in a campaign where the GWMing barbarian gets a magic greatsword, the SS ranger gets a magic longbow, but I, the PAM fighter get no magic halberd, because they're 'rare' or worse, the DM thinks that's part of 'balancing' PAM.

[ad_hoc]

I'm not advocating letting the players pick out exactly what magic items they get. For me at least, part of the fun of D&D is seeing what cool and unique items show up for you to use.

If you want to pick out your items you should own it.

When this comes up people say that they don't pick out items. They just tell the DM what they want and then get very upset if the DM doesn't provide the item.

It's the same thing. If you want to play with magic item shops, then do so, and admit that you are doing so.

Don't say that you want to have magic items be uncertain and then get upset when you don't get what you want. Our table is happy to find any magic weapons at all. Because those things are handy to have and we don't want to die. We are happy for anyone in the party to get a thing that makes them better because that character can now better help us survive. I understand other tables play in more of a style where success in the game is guaranteed and it is more of a competition among players for who is doing the most things. That's just not how all tables play though.

[Sception]

"Any magic polearm at all, so that my character can still be fun to play at levels where every enemy is resisting non-magical weapon damage" isn't the same as "this specific magic glaive". Refusing the latter is fine. Refusing the former to punish a player for taking a feat you thought was too strong but let them take anyway is not.

[ad_hoc]

Refusing the former to punish a player for taking a feat you thought was too strong but let them take anyway is not.

It has nothing to do with punishment or the feat.

We don't change the game based on player's character choices. Monsters, obstacles, magic items, etc. don't get changed because of a player's choices during character creation. The party is formed then they tackle the challenges with the tools and abilities they have. They come upon different sorts of magic items and use them as best they can.

In our current campaign the characters are almost 6th level and haven't found a single magic weapon. They did find some magical ammunition though which they have been using wisely. It's entirely possible they will be 10th level and still not have found a magical weapon. Not likely, but possible. When they do find weapons no one knows what they will find. No one is punishing anyone.

No one chooses the magic items. That's it.

[Sception]

It's entirely possible they will be 10th level and still not have found a magical weapon.

If you're in a game where all magic items are rare and the party knows that's what they signed up for and the polearm character is in the same boat as everybody else, that's fine - though as the campaign goes on muggles in general are likely to become less and less effective and have less and less fun as a result, but most campaigns don't go on that long anyway, and low magic campaigns in general kind of stop making sense by the early to mid teens anyway, around the time that most monsters are bizarre magical monstrosities rather than unusually large bears, and dungeons are thought castles in the astral plane instead of just a cave in the woods, and spellcasters have enough slots to be throwing out encounter-defining spells every combat round of the day. At that point if the *only* magic that's still rare is specifically the kind that a non-spellcasting character needs to feel like they're more than glorified hirelings, then that's a problem.

Not a problem with low magic campaigns in general, just a problem with high level low magic campaigns, because those things are kind of inherently at odds, because there's too much superheroics and magical spectical flying around in high level games before you even consider item selection/availability to call the game 'low magic' at that point. Again, not something that typically comes up, since so few campaigns make it past 10th level in the first place.


On the other hand, saying "the loot tables are the loot tables, you've just got to pray for a lucky drop" isn't necessarily all that great either. For one, it can arbitrarily screw over a character in a way that isn't fun. For another, it can be very 'video gamey', and not in a good way. All that running dungeons praying for a lucky drop business. It risks reducing adventures to the soul deadening grind of a slot machine. Not very narratively engaging.

I personally prefer to take a bit more active hand on the items in my games. Some random stuff just to see what falls out, but with a fair bit of creation. Weed out drops that will disrupt and derail the campaign, make an important npc villain's gear magical - both to make them more special/threatening and to provide an extra reward for defeating them, and yes, sometimes adding something specifically for a particular character if they've been a bit left out or are falling a bit behind.

To me, doing so is no different from including elements of the party's backstories into the game. In both cases, the world is different because of choices the players made in character creation. I don't see any significant difference between fudging a loot table on occasion so a character can get something cool and fudging the roster of enemies in an adventure so that a character's hated rival can show up as the big bad's right hand lieutennent, or swapping in an orc stonghold where I had previously planned or the module/setting had previously described a hobgoblin fortress, to better work in the backstory of a half orc in the party. But then again, I see characters as protagonists in a shared story, rather than occupants of a world that exists without them. Because it kind of literally doesn't.

[Pelle]

But what wouldn't be fun for me is being in a campaign where the GWMing barbarian gets a magic greatsword, the SS ranger gets a magic longbow, but I, the PAM fighter get no magic halberd, because they're 'rare' or worse, the DM thinks that's part of 'balancing' PAM.

The problem here is that you are assuming the the DM intentionally gives a magic greatsword and longbow specifically to the barbarian and ranger. That's maybe not the case. The party fought a Death Knight wielding a magical greatsword, hence the sword. The party seeked out the legendary elven bowyer in the enchanted forest, hence the longbow. If the DM is in fact intentionally giving out items the players wish for, then it is hard to imagine the polearm guy not getting one.

If specific weapons should be guaranteed for a character, it should be a class feature, or come with the feat or something. I understand in older editions this was common, at level 10 you got a castle and an army etc. There's some of this already in 5e, for example The Pact of the Tome Warlock feature encourage the DM to let the players conveniently find a book of dark secrets.

[Tanarii]

If you're in a game where all magic items are rare and the party knows that's what they signed up for and the polearm character is in the same boat as everybody else, that's fine - though as the campaign goes on muggles in general are likely to become less and less effective and have less and less fun as a result, but most campaigns don't go on that long anyway, and low magic campaigns in general kind of stop making sense by the early to mid teens anyway, around the time that most monsters are bizarre magical monstrosities rather than unusually large bears, and dungeons are thought castles in the astral plane instead of just a cave in the woods, and spellcasters have enough slots to be throwing out encounter-defining spells every combat round of the day. At that point if the *only* magic that's still rare is specifically the kind that a non-spellcasting character needs to feel like they're more than glorified hirelings, then that's a problem.

Using the DMG, the chance that a party will hit 5th level and have found 0 magic weapons is 57.7%.

And note there's a decent chance (~10% each) that if you found one it will be a javelin of lighting or trident of fish command.

Using the DMG, there is a 13.3% chance that a party will hit level 11 and have found 0 magic weapons. (Edit2: that's 13.3% from start of level 5 through end of level 10.)

That means approximately 1 in 20 tables running a campaign using the DMG guidelines for a single party might expect not to find no magic weapons by level 11. That's a non-trivial number.

Also, that was one hell of a run on sentence. Impressed. :smallbiggrin:

Edit1 to avoid multi posting:


DM: You find a +1 longsword.
Sword-wielder: Awesome! Now I have three!
Polearm-wielder: Oh come on dude I still have nothing over here.

At some point, continuously choosing not to give out loot that suits a particular character best is just being a ****, especially when all the other characters have a weapon that suits them. First of all, allow me to repeat myself from the vey post you quoted:
One of my first responses on this did tangent was that the DMG doesn't give us a way to handle determining the specific form of many magic weapons.

Second of all, no, it's not being a (insert masked profanity of choice here) to use random tables. There are lots of things you can do with magic items you can't use. Two off the top of my head: Try to sell them. Give them to henchmen to gain their loyalty.


"Any magic polearm at all, so that my character can still be fun to play at levels where every enemy is resisting non-magical weapon damage" isn't the same as "this specific magic glaive". Refusing the latter is fine. Refusing the former to punish a player for taking a feat you thought was too strong but let them take anyway is not.A lack of a reward is not a punishment. Seriously That's just manipulative language to try and shift something that is a reward to get it, into being some punishment to not get.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not advocating letting the players pick out exactly what magic items they get. For me at least, part of the fun of D&D is seeing what cool and unique items show up for you to use. But what wouldn't be fun for me is being in a campaign where the GWMing barbarian gets a magic greatsword, the SS ranger gets a magic longbow, but I, the PAM fighter get no magic halberd, because they're 'rare' or worse, the DM thinks that's part of 'balancing' PAM.


At some point, continuously choosing not to give out loot that suits a particular character best is just being a ****,

Okay, there are multiple arguments and multiple points that really ought not be conflated. Astofel, no one continuing to be present on this thread has been advocating deliberately withholding polearms as an offset to the power of PAM, so with that argument, you are effectively refuting a position no one is taking. People are taking the position that they prefer random lot to determine the shape of an un-typed magic item which shows up on the treasure table, and that state of affairs is a natural constraint on anyone choosing a weapon/armor-specific feat. Taking any position on either of these cases is reasonable. Conflating the two as the same thing suggests to your audience that you either do not understand or do not care about the difference of the two positions and which ones your fellow thread participants are taking.

In addition, there seem to be two levels of consequence to the positions -- that you wouldn't find it fun if something were the case, and the DM is being a **** if something is the case. The first I think a lot of people can get behind, or at least understand. The second is a harder sell. Again, the two are thoroughly different arguments that it does no one any good to conflate.


"Any magic polearm at all, so that my character can still be fun to play at levels where every enemy is resisting non-magical weapon damage" isn't the same as "this specific magic glaive". Refusing the latter is fine. Refusing the former to punish a player for taking a feat you thought was too strong but let them take anyway is not.


We don't change the game based on player's character choices. Monsters, obstacles, magic items, etc. don't get changed because of a player's choices during character creation. The party is formed then they tackle the challenges with the tools and abilities they have. They come upon different sorts of magic items and use them as best they can.


If you're in a game where all magic items are rare and the party knows that's what they signed up for and the polearm character is in the same boat as everybody else, that's fine.

See? Differing reasonable positions not related to deliberately excluding polearms to screw with PAM-takers.

[ad_hoc]

If you're in a game where all magic items are rare and the party knows that's what they signed up for and the polearm character is in the same boat as everybody else, that's fine - though as the campaign goes on muggles in general are likely to become less and less effective and have less and less fun as a result, but most campaigns don't go on that long anyway, and low magic campaigns in general kind of stop making sense by the early to mid teens anyway, around the time that most monsters are bizarre magical monstrosities rather than unusually large bears, and dungeons are thought castles in the astral plane instead of just a cave in the woods, and spellcasters have enough slots to be throwing out encounter-defining spells every combat round of the day. At that point if the *only* magic that's still rare is specifically the kind that a non-spellcasting character needs to feel like they're more than glorified hirelings, then that's a problem.


It's not low magic, we're playing standard 5e. I get the feeling that people here tend to play with tons of high powered magic items. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it provides a different perspective.

XGtE provides an alternative method for magic items than the treasure hoards in the DMG; namely, to choose the items based on rarity. The standard really is to roll for them though in practice I think most are just found by what an adventure states. The 5e standard is that each PC is expected to have 2 major items by the end of level 10. 3 more items by 20th level for 5 major items total. So a character might have Boots of Elvenkind and a +1 Weapon at level 10 and that is standard, not low magic.

I think the majority of campaigns don't get past 11. The few that do don't spend that much more time in the high tiers.

Again, I think it is more that this board represents a very small subset who play at the high levels often. The game is designed to spend the majority of the time in levels 5-10. Not playing that way will give a different perspective both on what is good and what is important.

Dungeon of the Mad Mage will be going from 6-20. Will be interesting to see how the game does at those high levels across a bigger sample size of players.

[ad_hoc]

Using the DMG, the chance that a party will hit 5th level and have found 0 magic weapons is 57.7%.

And note there's a decent chance (~10% each) that if you found one it will be a javelin of lighting or trident of fish command.

Using the DMG, there is a 13.3% chance that a party will hit level 11 and have found 0 magic weapons.

That means approximately 1 in 20 tables running a campaign using the DMG guidelines for a single party might expect not to find no magic weapons by level 11. That's a non-trivial number.

Also, that was one hell of a run on sentence. Impressed. :smallbiggrin:

Thanks for the numbers!


There's some of this already in 5e, for example The Pact of the Tome Warlock feature encourage the DM to let the players conveniently find a book of dark secrets.

And Pact of the Blade gives a magic weapon!

[Tanarii]

Thanks for the numbers!
I added the following edit for clarity:
(Edit: that's 13.3% from start of level 5 through end of level 10.)

In other words, the 13.3% for T2 doesn't include any magic items (weapons or otherwise) that were discovered in T1.

[Sigreid]

So, now a question about the balance of a feat is totally hijacked to an arguement about playstyles between people who will most likely never play together. I apologize for my part in this derail.

[Tanarii]

So, now a question about the balance of a feat is totally hijacked to an arguement about playstyles between people who will most likely never play together. I apologize for my part in this derail.
I'm the OP and I totally participated in it and helped it come to be. Can't dictate a many page thread's ultimate direction. But can help it get where it's going anyway. :smallamused:

I though it was nice beelzebubba stayed on topic several pages in though.

[Sception]

Again, I think it is more that this board represents a very small subset who play at the high levels often.

If you're not playing at levels where the game more or less assumes weapon using characters have access to magical weapons, to the point that even the punch guy gets magic fists to keep up, at levels where you may not yet found enough magical weapons for all of the party's weapon users to be carrying one regardless of their weapon choice, then withholding magical weapons from the polearm user isn't a meaningful check on the power of PAM to begin with.

This is a thread about the balance of PAM, not about magic item distribution styles, unless you think that magic item distribution was deliberately used to balance feats and weapons in general in the first place, and that's an easy point to refute, since if it were true swords would be weaker than other weapons by default, since there are so many sword-only items. But great swords aren't weaker than mauls or great axes by default, longswords and rapiers aren't weaker than battle axes and flails. The feats and options for these weapons aren't weaker, either.

PAM, GWM, SS, these feats aren't meant to be balanced by anything at all other than the opportunity cost of not taking another feat or ASI. If they're dramatically out of step with the balance of other feats, then that's because the designers messed up, not because of black box mechanics in entirely unrelated subsystems.

[ad_hoc]

If you're not playing at levels where the game more or less assumes weapon using characters have access to magical weapons, to the point that even the punch guy gets magic fists to keep up, at levels where you may not yet found enough magical weapons for all of the party's weapon users to be carrying one regardless of their weapon choice, then withholding magical weapons from the polearm user isn't a meaningful check on the power of PAM to begin with.

Monk gets magic strikes at 6th level. We spend most of our game time in levels 5-10.

Again, it's not withholding. Characters are not entitled to specific magic items. It isn't a denial or withholding, it's just the game.


This is a thread about the balance of PAM, not about magic item distribution styles, unless you think that magic item distribution was deliberately used to balance feats and weapons in general in the first place, and that's an easy point to refute, since if it were true swords would be weaker than other weapons by default, since there are so many sword-only items. But great swords aren't weaker than mauls or great axes by default, longswords and rapiers aren't weaker than battle axes and flails. The feats and options for these weapons aren't weaker, either.


What matters is what is. Magic polearms are very rare for most tables so PAM isn't as good at those tables. For tables where players get to choose magic items then PAM becomes better than it is in standard 5e.

Different combinations of variants will alter the strengths of not just specific things in those variants but of other things in the game.

It is just a factor to consider when designing a houserule. The playstyle should be taken into consideration during the design process of the houserule.

That's all.

[Tanarii]

2) for the opportunity attack when entering the threatened area:
- change it to a generic reaction instead of an opportunity attack. This prevents several nasty stacking effects.

It just occurred to me that outside of the speed=0 Sentinel interaction, this is actually a minor buff since hostile creatures can't disengage to avoid the reaction attack. Even the "no disengage" Sentinel bullet specifies they have to be "leaving your reach". Mostly relevant for enemy Goblins and Rogues, who can disengage as a bonus.
That's a good catch. Being an Opportunity Attack interacts with several things that prevent Opportunity Attacks. Mobile Feat for example. Also, I believe the Swashbuckler gets a class feature too.

[Pex]

The problem here is that you are assuming the the DM intentionally gives a magic greatsword and longbow specifically to the barbarian and ranger. That's maybe not the case. The party fought a Death Knight wielding a magical greatsword, hence the sword. The party seeked out the legendary elven bowyer in the enchanted forest, hence the longbow. If the DM is in fact intentionally giving out items the players wish for, then it is hard to imagine the polearm guy not getting one.

If specific weapons should be guaranteed for a character, it should be a class feature, or come with the feat or something. I understand in older editions this was common, at level 10 you got a castle and an army etc. There's some of this already in 5e, for example The Pact of the Tome Warlock feature encourage the DM to let the players conveniently find a book of dark secrets.

It's fine the party fought a death knight and the barbarian claimed his sword. It's wonderful there was a grand adventure in the enchanted forest to seek the legendary elven bowyer. Why couldn't there have been an Orc/Hobgoblin/Cult Leader/Anti-Paladin wielding a magical glaive giving the party trouble because he has Pole Arm Master and Sentinel feats himself in some adventure? Why couldn't there have been a magical halberd laying around forgotten in the dragon's hoard?


So, now a question about the balance of a feat is totally hijacked to an arguement about playstyles between people who will most likely never play together. I apologize for my part in this derail.

Welcome to the internet!
:smallbiggrin:

[Nifft]

Monk gets magic strikes at 6th level. We spend most of our game time in levels 5-10.

Again, it's not withholding. Characters are not entitled to specific magic items. It isn't a denial or withholding, it's just the game.



What matters is what is. Magic polearms are very rare for most tables so PAM isn't as good at those tables. For tables where players get to choose magic items then PAM becomes better than it is in standard 5e.

Some classes have ways to turn any weapon magical, so finding magical pole arms isn't strictly necessary for PAM to be useful, even when you need a magic weapon.

(Or the PAM character could just carry a back-up weapon, and be one feat less effective when a magic weapon was more situationally useful; much like a GWM character might carry a longbow or a quarterstaff for situations where a greatsword wasn't a great idea.)

[Pelle]

It's fine the party fought a death knight and the barbarian claimed his sword. It's wonderful there was a grand adventure in the enchanted forest to seek the legendary elven bowyer. Why couldn't there have been an Orc/Hobgoblin/Cult Leader/Anti-Paladin wielding a magical glaive giving the party trouble because he has Pole Arm Master and Sentinel feats himself in some adventure? Why couldn't there have been a magical halberd laying around forgotten in the dragon's hoard?


There could possibly be one, but in this case the DM is not looking at what the players want. It just happened organically at the table. If the players want something specific, they seek it out themselves, the DM don't care either way.

Should the DM try to include things the players wish for? You think so and that's cool, but a lot of tables don't like that. If the DM is giving out what the players want, then there would be a polearm in this case as well. But the DM isn't, and that's a valid playstyle as well. And if that's your groups playstyle, PAM is a relatively worse feat...

[DanyBallon]

In my home game I slightly nerfed GWM, PAM, and SS


You’ve learned to put the weight of a weapon to your advantage, letting its momentum empower your strikes. You gain the following benefits:
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
- Before you make a melee attack with a non-reach two-handed heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a - 5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage

You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:
- When you take the Attack action and attack two-handed with only a glaive, halberd, or a quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a non-reach melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
- While you are wielding with two hands glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach

You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible.
You gain the following benefits:
- You double the normal range of ranged weapons you are proficient with.
- Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
- Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

Those aren’t major changes, but the change to GWM, ends the PAM + GWM combo, except for quarterstaff. The change to PAM requires that the weapon is wielded two-handed, so no more one-handed quarterstaff PAM, and also the butt end bonus attack must now be made within 5 feet. As for sharpshooter, it only change the maximum range you can shoot without disadvantage.

None of these makes the feat useless, and they are still on the high end of the power spectrum, but it reduce some abuses.

[Chrltrn]

In my opinion, the issue with martial combat feats is that for a melee character, the best build is GWM + PAM + Sentinel, by miles. Sword and board is less optimal, the extra AC + shield master doesn't even come close. Two weapon fighting also doesn't match up. The two-handed feat combo (gwm +Pam + sent) synergizes so well that once you pick any one of those feats, picking any other other feat (combat or not) is basically intentionally choosing to be less effective. SS + Xbow master is the same for ranged martials.

The fix to this is complicated though. Simply nerfing that feat combination so that it's back in line with 2wf or S&B is the wrong route, IMO. Martials are pretty fundamentally worse than Casters outside of combat, and so I think that they should be at least a bit better in combat, and the only build I can think of that a martial could take to consistently deal more damage in combat than a caster at high levels is PAM+GWM+sent (I'm actually not 100% on that so I'm very open to being corrected, if someone has looked at the numbers. How does a fully optimized blastlock compare to a Pam+gwm+sent battle master in terms of DPR over a standard adventuring day?)

So, all of that said, I feel like in 5e there was a definite lack of forethought put into build balance between classes, with consideration to what a player is trying to accomplish, or contribute to a party, by selecting that build. For example, if you have a party with a cleric, a paladin, a wizard, a bard, and a Barbarian... Both the Barbarian and the Paladin *should* be working towards +5 STR, gwm+PAM+Sentinel by full build. Going RAW by the numbers, that's by far the best. I'm speculating, but the main reason why you don't see that build more often is because it feels cheesy because it's so strong or it's played out and feels boring. That doesn't signify good game design because it creates dissonance. A player that wants to build a strong character is forced to deliberately build to be weaker just for some variety.

The fix? Start by figuring out what the different possible builds should bring to the table, and then balance them by making them all definitely better than the others in those situations.

Off the top of my head, sword and board is for tanks/controllers, 2-handers are for big single target damage, 2wf is for better dealing with multiple targets.

Right now, 2-handers get just as many attacks and can spread damage around just as well as 2wf, but deal more damage, and, they deal sooooo much more damage than S&B, that the tankiness of a shield just doesn't compare (especially when, if they really need it, it's an action to drop their GS, and pull out their LS and shield...)

This post is getting long... I'll leave it here for now

[Tanarii]

Those aren’t major changes, but the change to GWM, ends the PAM + GWM combo, except for quarterstaff. Yeah, I think as a PAM house rule, that's one of two most important changes:
- Removing interactions with other Feats, especially GWM is is a proven outlier on its own.
- Making it so it's not outright better than TWF with a Feat, and that's only one part of what it does.


Martials are pretty fundamentally worse than Casters outside of combat,I don't understand this attitude. Two of the three best out of combat classes are Martials: Rogue and Ranger. The other is a full Caster: Bard.


and so I think that they should be at least a bit better in combat, and the only build I can think of that a martial could take to consistently deal more damage in combat than a caster at high levels is PAM+GWM+sent (I'm actually not 100% on that so I'm very open to being corrected, if someone has looked at the numbers. How does a fully optimized blastlock compare to a Pam+gwm+sent battle master in terms of DPR over a standard adventuring day?)
Google Kryx and look in his sig he's crunched the numbers in thoroughly over-exhaustive analysis. I haven't looked at the Martials without feats at all vs full Casters comparisons in a little while, but IIRC they're already balanced at that point for damage across an adventuring day. Especially in the sweet Tier 2 spot (levels 5-11) where the vast majority of play happens.

Edit: I agree the general theme of your post that different Martial fighting styles should have equally well supported Feats that aren't OP or two weak, so they're real choices to be made.

[Pex]

There could possibly be one, but in this case the DM is not looking at what the players want. It just happened organically at the table. If the players want something specific, they seek it out themselves, the DM don't care either way.

Should the DM try to include things the players wish for? You think so and that's cool, but a lot of tables don't like that. If the DM is giving out what the players want, then there would be a polearm in this case as well. But the DM isn't, and that's a valid playstyle as well. And if that's your groups playstyle, PAM is a relatively worse feat...

Exactly! No magic item exists without the DM's permission. If the DM refuses to give out magical pole arms, that's his business, but that has no bearing on whether Pole Arm Master is too powerful a feat or not. The existence or not of magical pole arms cannot be used as evidence because the existence is dependent on the DM, not the rules.

[Chrltrn]

I don't understand this attitude. Two of the three best out of combat classes are Martials: Rogue and Ranger. The other is a full Caster: Bard.


I'll explain the attitude:

Rogues and rangers are good out of combat, for sure, but for the most part, they don't really do anything that any other character can't do. They just do some things really well. Everyone can sneak, everyone can pick a Lock, everyone can look for food, everyone can try to make their way through a forest.

Not everyone can literally fly, or make other non flying people fly - only casters.
Generating a perfect hologram is something any caster can do with a cantrip. No martial can do that.
Create a fire in less than 6 seconds. Cantrip
Fuse two pieces of material in an instant forming a perfect bond - cantrip
Sending - Send messages instantly across hundreds of miles
Oh we don't have a rogue to pick that lock? Let me cast guidance on anyone - cantrip
Prestidigitation?

Saying that a high level Rogue has more out of combat utility than a high level Wizard, for instance, is an absurd statement.

That being said, I do agree that rangers and rogues have MORE utility than fighters and barbarians, for instance, so they should do less damage in combat than fighters and barbarians. If you want to argue that rogues should do less in combat than Casters because they are better at the other two pillars of the game, then that would make sense. (I actually think Rogues are in a decent place though, as far as their overall balance with the other classes).

[Tanarii]

Edit: removing pointless tagent

[Chrltrn]

It's only absurd if you assume all non-Martials are Quantum Wizards: Wizard class (1 out of six Full Casters), always have exactly the right out of combat spell available to use, and have the spare resources to use it.

Edit: not to mention wizards are the first to complain that it doesn't "make sense" that a rogue can be better at Arcana checks than they are.
(Okay, fine, sometimes it's the Clerics with Religion or the Druids with Nature. :smallyuk: )

Sure the wizard won't AWLAYS have the spell, but the situation won't ALWAYS call for lock picking or sneaking either, and when it does, like I said, sneaking isn't exclusive to Rogues. Magic however (which is an enormous part of the game, taking up 89 out of 316 pages in the phb) is exclusive to casters (by definition).

Think about it this way. A party without a Rogue isn't going to have to play very different than any other party. Same could be said about a party without a Ranger. A party with 0 casters? They will do ok in combat, and won't have to do much of anything different. But out of combat, they are going to struggle significantly more to come up with solutions to problems that are typically not that big a deal in Dnd, especially at later levels.

Every full casting class has better utility in the exploration pillar than every martial class.

[Kane0]

Basically you want to do two things:
- Stop the PAM BA attack from walking all over TWF
- Disconnect synergy between great weapon and reach weapon combat styles

For 1 just insert some sort of linitation on the BA attack such as not having reach or only getting the attack if you miss as suggested, for 2 specify that PAM is only for reach melee weapons held in both hands and GWM is only for non-reach melee weapons held in both hands (which also throws a bone to versatile types).

Altering the -5/+10 of GWM/SS is optional, as is the cover ignoring aspect of the SSs

[stoutstien]

So Pam is out of the curve but only compared to other martials without one of the three big feats. still are behind full casters in terms of social and exploratory fields. So let's say we were going to give all classes with extra attack feature one of those feats for free but remove them from the normal feat list. What lv would be the best place to stick them?

[Chrltrn]

So Pam is out of the curve but only compared to other martials without one of the three big feats. still are behind full casters in terms of social and exploratory fields. So let's say we were going to give all classes with extra attack feature one of those feats for free but remove them from the normal feat list. What lv would be the best place to stick them?

Hmmm. To be honest I wonder if that might not be over-doing it, giving an extra feat, without actually affecting the problem of PAM+GWM+Sentinel being much better than any other build. Or, were you suggesting that they all get one of those for free, but then they can't get any other one (of those three) after that? If so, you're hoping that the free feat makes up for losing the amount of power that that build offers?

Might work, and it would mean more variety in terms of people having opportunity to pick those other feats that don't get a chance to shine.

Compare some different potential build combinations with one of those big three for free and then only non-big three feats after that to GWM+PAM+Sent and see what you get. If they seem about even, that's a really cool solution.

As for when, if they get it because they have extra attack, they should get it at level 5 I suppose. But, you can't ever get it twice (if someone were to multiclass)

[Tanarii]

still are behind full casters in terms of social and exploratory fields. So let's say we were going to give all classes with extra attack feature one of those feats for free but remove them from the normal feat list. What lv would be the best place to stick them?
Even Martials were behind the curve, which they aren't, the solution to that would be to enhance Martials in the social and exploratory fields. Not their combat power.

Giving them free built in overpowered feats is the exact opposite of what's needed to balance the feats.



For 1 just insert some sort of linitation on the BA attack such as not having reach or only getting the attack if you miss as suggested, for 2 specify that PAM is only for reach melee weapons held in both hands and GWM is only for non-reach melee weapons held in both hands (which also throws a bone to versatile types).Yup. The two simplest changes seem to be just that. Change BA from PAM to if ou miss, and GWM to Melee weapon with out Reach for the first bullet point and Heavy Weapon without Reach for the second.

Of course, if you're house ruling PAM anyway might as well do something about 1H quarterstaff and not working with spears, for aesthetic purposes.

So my personal preference for a revised Polearm Master would probably read:

You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:

When you take the Attack action, and attack with the weapon wielded in two hands, with only a glaive, halberd, spear or quarterstaff, if any of your attacks miss, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, spear or quarterstaff in two hands, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.
Edits in italics. Opportunity attack left as an opportunity attack, because it seems like changing that will break more than it fixes.

As far as feat interactions go, another possible solution there is to only allow one combat "style" feat per character.

[Chrltrn]

Even Martials were behind the curve, which they aren't, the solution to that would be to enhance Martials in the social and exploratory fields. Not their combat power.

Interesting how sure you are of that point. I raised some points to support the argument that magic makes casters better at non-combat than martial, and all you've said is "no, you're wrong".

You also seem to think that the idea of compensating for a weakness in one area with a strength in another is wrong, which I disagree with, because I think that sameness for the sake of balance is not the right route to take (see 4e).

To get back to the thread though, you balance PAM by increasing the power of and adding synergies to the feats that support the other fighting styles: sword and board, and 2 weapon fighting. Bring those builds up to the same level of effectiveness as PAM + GWM + Sent, but in a different combat niche. Change gwm so that it is equally effective, but only at single target damage maybe. Make 2wf really good at dealing damage to multiple targets. Make Sword and board is just as powerful, but at making you tanky and controlling. Add something to Sentinel that makes it synergize just as well with shield master as it does PAM. "If equipped with a shield, add your proficiency mod to the AC of the target of the attack that triggered your reaction attack." Something like that, but worded better, obviously.

That is how you balance PAM+gwm+sent, without gutting martial who, IMO, at the very least don't need to be nerfed relative to casters (I hope we can agree that martials currently aren't MORE powerful than casters...)